Political Winners and Losers: Virginia Supreme Court Kills Redistricting Amendment

Here are a few “winners” and “losers” that I believe are worth highlighting from yesterday’s Virginia Supreme Court 4-3 ruling (along partisan lines), striking down the redistricting amendment just approved by Virginia voters on April 21 (here’s the Winnners and Losers list from that, to compare/contrast to this one). Note that this list isn’t even close to comprehensive – nor is it intended to be (in part because it could go on for days…and at some point, enough is enough, lol!) – so please add “winners” and “losers” of your own in the comments section. By the way, it’s important to point out that you can be a “winner” even if you’re a right-wing Republican (e.g., McDonnell and Cuccinelli in 2009 were huge “winners,” even though they completely suck!) or whatever, and that you can be a “loser” even if you’re my favorite Democrat in the world, because in this context “winner” and “loser” is all about whether someone “won” or “lost” politically in this election cycle, not whether that makes me happy or not or whether it’s normatively a “good” or “bad” thing, per se.  With that…on to the “Winners”/”Mixed”/”Losers” from the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, May 8.

Winners

1. Republicans: They’ve been completely hypocritical, dishonest, shameless, cynical, you name it, and yet in the end they won this fight, making them political winners, by definition. But yeah, it’s utterly repulsive how these people gin up selective (faux?) OUTRAGE over anything Democrats do to fight back, but are 100% a-ok with Republicans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennesssee, etc. gerrymandering like mad. Also note that Republicans in 2021 voted unanimously against legislation in Congress – proposed and supported by Democrats – to ban gerrymandering nationally, as well as to put into place other much-needed reforms aimed at strengthening our democracy. So clearly, Republicans are strongly SUPPORTIVE of partisan gerrymandering WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM, but are suddenly OUTRAGED by it when it might actually benefit Democrats, or hell, even if it’s neutral. Again, it’s utterly disgusting, but it’s also been effective, because Republicans haven’t taken their eyes of the prize, have been relentless and ruthless, etc. So sure, they’re political “winners,” but on a MORAL “winners and losers” list, they’d be massive losers. This isn’t that list, though…
2. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA06): Pre-SCOVA-ruling, Cline looked like he was in deep trouble, quite possibly doomed to defeat in November (likely by former Rep. Tom Perriello, who would have been a super-strong Democratic opponent for Cline), as the new VA06 was slated to look very different than his current district, and also a LOT bluer (Harris +3 points) than the current, deep-red seat he’s held since 2019. Post-SCOVA, Cline remains in his solid-red seat (which Trump won by 12 points in November 2024), and no longer facing Perriello, who will be running in VA05 instead. So…yep, huge winner here, even if completely undeserved based on the horrendously bad job he’s done in the US House.
3. Rep. John McGuire (R-VA05): Pre-SCOVA-ruling, McGuire looked like he was doomed, without even an obvious district to run in, and to the extent he wanted to keep running in VA05, a district that went from solid-red to solid-blue. Post-SCOVA-ruling, McGuire’s now in MUCH better shape, albeit not guaranteed of victory in November.
4. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA01): Pre-SCOVA-ruling, Wittman was facing almost certain defeat in November with the new maps. Heck, it wasn’t even clear if he’d run again, or if so WHERE he’d run, as his current district would have been essentially nonexistent. Post-SCOVA-ruling, Wittman now has a tough fight ahead of him (likely against Democrat Shannon Taylor – see below), but he’s the incumbent with a huge campaign warchest, so he certainly has a decent chance of holding his seat – as opposed to being almost guaranteed to lose it prior to the SCOVA ruling. That definitely makes him a winner – a big one.
5. Donald Trump: In the end, the SCOVA ruling could result in Democrats only gaining one or two seats in Virginia this November, instead of likely four seats, helping Donald Trump in his goal of keeping the U.S. House of Representatives out of the hands of Democrats – who will subpoena, investigate, refuse to pass Trump’s desired legislation, possibly even impeach the corrupt motherf%$#^! So appallingly, yes, Trump’s a political winner in this…ugh.
6. Mike Johnson: He’s probably still not going to be Speaker any longer after he likely loses his majority in the November elections, but the SCOVA ruling was definitely a win for him, as it makes it a bit more likely that he can (barely) hang on to his worst-in-history, utterly disgraceful Speakership.

Mixed

1. Rep. Jen Kiggans: Pre-SCOVA-ruling, Kiggans was looking like she was highly likely to lose to former Rep. Elaine Luria in November. Post-SCOVA-ruling, that outlook doesn’t really change a ton, particularly in a likely “blue wave” environment this fall, as VA02 only shifts a few points (from Harris +4.7 points in the proposed new map to basically a tossup between Trump and Harris in 2024; also with Spanberger winning the district in November 2025). So I almost put Kiggans in the “Winners” category, but in the end I still think she’s highly likely to lose regardless, so I decided to put her in “Mixed” instead.
2. Elaine Luria: Pre-SCOVA-ruling, Luria was looking like she was highly likely to defeat Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA02) in November. Post-SCOVA-ruling, that outlook doesn’t really change a ton, particularly in a likely “blue wave” environment this fall, as VA02 only shifts a few points (from Harris +4.7 points in the proposed new map to basically a tossup between Trump and Harris in 2024; also with Spanberger winning the district in November 2025). So in the end, I still think Luria’s highly likely to win regardless…
3. Democratic U.S. House incumbents:  All of Virginia’s Democratic U.S. House incumbents – Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA03), Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA04), Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA07), Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA08), Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA10), Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA11) were more or less safe with the new maps, and are more or less safe with the existing maps. Of course, this whole thing has been chaotic and confusing, also has taken the incumbents’ time and energy – Eugene Vindman, Don Beyer, James Walkinshaw driving around, introducing themselves to their potentially new districts’ voters – but in the end, they all should be fine either way, so…yeah, “Mixed.”
4. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA09): Regardless of how SCOVA ruled, Griffith was going to be in one of the reddest districts in the country, so that wasn’t an issue for him. The only question was whether, under the new maps, Griffith might have faced a Republican primary from one of the other Republican incumbents – Ben Cline? That probably was unlikely, though, which is why I’m not putting Griffith in the Winners category, as he probably never faced a serious threat in any way, which means that for Griffith, not much has changed.
5. Virginia Democrats who pushed for this, campaigned for it, etc.: In the end, Virginia Democrats like Sen. Louise Lucas (who more than anyone pushed for the 10D-1R map), Sen. Scott Surovell (who very skillfully guided the amendment through the State Senate, under a great deal of time pressure), VA Speaker Don Scott, Gov. Abigail Spanberger, etc. won the referendum but lost (narrowly) in the VA Supreme Court.  But I don’t consider them political “Losers” for a couple main reasons: a) at least they tried to fight back, and they would have won if it weren’t for four Republican SCOVA justices doing something pretty shocking; b) I don’t think this loss hurts any of them politically, and if anything might anger Virginia Democrats so much that it helps at the ballot box this November and next November, when the entire General Assembly will be up for election.
6. Hakeem Jeffries: He put a great deal of energy, attention, money (tens of millions of $$$), etc. into the Virginia redistricting campaign, and he won…before having it snatched away from him. So yes, he’s a winner for fighting back, but he’s a political loser because his chances of becoming Speaker of the House just took a big hit – albeit not a fatal ones by any means; in fact, he’s still favored to be the next Speaker of the House, even if his margin is smaller than it would have been prior to the US Supreme Court and Virginia Supreme Court’s rulings.
7. Beth Macy: Pre-SCOVA-ruling, Macy was looking unlikely to win the Democratic nomination over former Rep. Tom Perriello the proposed new “blue”-leaning VA06. Post-SCOVA-ruling, Macy is now HIGHLY likely to win the VA06 Democratic nomination, so that makes her a “Winner,” right? Except…nope, because she’ll likely be the Democratic nominee in a VA06 that is solid-red, not light-blue. So mixed bag for Macy, all things considered.

Losers

1. American Democracy: It’s been an extremely rough few years for American democracy, but the past couple weeks have been particularly atrocious, first with the US Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act – opening the door to a gerrymandering spree across the country (starting in the red states, but probably in the blue states as well), the elimination of numerous African American members of the US House,  and just a complete travesty in every way if you care about democracy. Then, we had the Trump administration ramping up its selective prosecutions, investigations (including “investigating voting records in Georgia and legally targeting lawmakers and groups seen as hostile to the president’s agenda,” the raid against Sen. Louise Lucas’ businesses in Portsmouth,), Trump successfully targeting Indiana Republicans who stood up to him on gerrymandering in that state, etc. And now we have the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling, overturning the results of Virginia’s redistricting referendum, which aimed at pushing back against Trump and his allies attempting to rig the U.S. House maps in their favor for 2026 and beyond.  Add in the fact that in red states, they just move ahead – rapidly! – to gerrymander Democrats out of existence, with no vote by the people, no Supreme Courts to strike down the gerrymanders, but in blue states, apparently we’re not allowed to fight back – MASSIVE double standard. How any of this is even remotely positive for American democracy is beyond me, but how it’s REALLY REALLY BAD for American democracy seems glaringly obvious.
2. Tom Perriello: Prior to the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling, Perriello was cruising to become the Democratic nominee in the new VA06, which he was favored to have won in November, as it was slated to be a blue-leaning (Harris +3 points) district in a likely “blue wave” political environment. Unfortunately now, after the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling, Perriello is back to facing incumbent Rep. John McGuire (R) in the existing VA05, which Donald Trump won by 12 points in November 2024 (and which Hung Cao won by 10 points over Sen. Tim Kaine). So it’s *potentially* doable for Perriello, but will be much, much MUCH harder than it would have been if the Virginia Supreme Court had upheld the proposed new maps.
3. Shannon Taylor: Pre-SCOVA ruling, Taylor was basically cruising to become the Democratic nominee in the new VA05, which she almost certainly would have won in November, as it was slated to be a solid-blue (Harris +8.5 points) district. Unfortunately now, after the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling, Taylor is back as the likely Democratic nominee, facing incumbent Rep. Rob Wittman (R) in the existing VA01, which Donald Trump won by 5 points in November 2024 (and which Abigail Spanberger won narrowly in November 2025). So it’s doable for Taylor, but will be a LOT harder than it would have been if the Virginia Supreme Court had upheld the proposed new maps.
4. Virginia Supreme Court’s legitimacy: This ruling was hugely consequential, truly unprecedented (overturning a referendum in which over 3 million Virginians cast votes, with the YES side winning by over 3 percentage points – not huge but wider than Glenn Youngkin’s margin in November 2021) and basically shocking, when it comes down to it.  So you’d think that the Virginia Supreme Court would have only wanted to take such a radical step if the facts, law, etc. were crystal clear, and preferably if they had an overwhelming majority, or even unanimity, among the Supreme Court’s justices.  Instead, they ruled along partisan lines, narrowly (4-3), and with legal reasoning that was…let’s just say, not exactly open-and-shut. Going forward, what will this do for the legitimacy of a court that, heretofore, the vast majority of Virginians probably almost never even thought about at all, but now are thinking about a great deal? Not sure, but doesn’t seem like a positive to me in terms of how the court is viewed, respected (or not), etc.
5. Virginia Supreme Court’s Republican justices: The VA Supreme Court’s (mostly conservative) justices clearly didn’t want to have to weigh in on this, and probably were hoping in their heart of hearts that voters would reject it, so they could say, “the question is now moot.” But since the referendum passed, albeit by a fairly small margin, the VA Supreme Court had to do something, even if was just to say “the voters have spoken and we’re not going to intervene.”  In the end, it was very hard to imagine that they’d overturn the will of of the electorate, with over 3 million votes having been cast, but that’s exactly what they ended up doing (BTW, they really couldn’t have stopped it BEFORE it went to the voters?). So now, we’ll see how these justices are viewed in history (not well, I suspect), as well as how long Republicans keep their narrow, 4-3 VA Supreme Court majority.  Because the fact is, Republican Justice D. Arthur Kelsey)’s term ends on January 31, 2027, and this ruling pretty much guarantees that he’ll be replaced by a Democrat, which should flip the court to 4D-3R. Then, Republican Justice Stephen R. McCullough will be outta there in March 2028…5D-2R time! So sure, these Republican justices had their way on Friday, May 8, but going forward, it’s hard to see how they’re not going to be losers, big time. [UPDATE: As a reader astutely/accurately points out –  “If the Supreme Court was going to rule based on this ( ridiculous) definition of Election Day, they absolutely should have done it before the referendum campaign and vote.  Tens of millions of $$$ squandered, yet another example for voters to wonder if their voices matter, weeks lost for candidates to go around their district and meet voters,  lost opportunities for campaigns to fundraise and altogether dispiriting to a Dem electorate that we need to be enthusiastic and excited to work and vote this fall…I might be almost as angry about them putting us through this when their ruling was obvious – to them – as the ruling itself.”]
6. Traditional Media Coverage: Unfortunately, state/local media has been in decline for years, and that includes its coverage – or lack thereof – of local and state politics. That was certainly reflected in its coverage (or lack thereof) of the the redistricting referendum, including the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling. Just a few of many problems include: superficial and/or “horse race” (who’s up? who’s down?) coverage; relentless false equivalency/”both sidesism”; repeated failure to call out demonstrable, glaring lies by Republicans; misleading reporting of early vote patterns; anti-Democratic/anti-amendment editorials masquerading as “news” articles; etc. And then there’s the Bezos Post’s used-to-be-centrist-turned-right-wingnut editorial page, which was basically frothing at the mouth against the amendment, lying about Gov. Abigail Spanberger, etc, etc. Oh, and how about WJLA/Sinclair “news,” which is essentially just 24/7 right-wing propaganda, an arm of the Republican Party? Just abysmal.
7. Rural residents: The VOTE NO campaign argued, absurdly, that if the redistricting referendum passed, rural voters would somehow be harmed because they’d lose their representatives in Congress. Which is just laughable, of course, as those representatives – Ben Cline, John McGuire, Rob Wittman, etc. – are horrendously bad, so replacing them with pretty much *any* Democrat would have been a MASSIVE upgrade in representatiion for voters in VA01, VA05, VA06, etc. Unfortunately, thanks to SCOVA’s 4-3 ruling, those rural residents likely will continue to be stuck with absolutely godawful (mis)representation for years to come. Congratulations…or something, lol!
8. Dan Helmer: He reportedly had a district (the new VA07) drawn with him in mind, and for a hot minute there it looked like he might finally accomplish his longstanding goal of being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives (he ran in 2018 in VA10, then again in 2024 in VA10, losing both times). But…nope, now it’s not going to happen this year, and it’s hard to see a clear path forward for Helmer in the next few years either. Of course, he’s still safe in the Virginia House of Delegates, but for someone who badly wants to be in Congress, this really can’t be spun as anything but a loss for him. (Oh yeah, it’s also worth noting that Helmer was a HUGE supporter of the fatally flawed, terminally naive, unilateral-disarmament 2020 “bipartisan redistricting commission” amendment, without which General Assembly Democrats could have just drawn the US House maps as Republicans have done in the “red” states. Even worse, we have to go through the same charade after the 2030 Census, with the “bipartisan redistricting commission” doomed to fail yet again, kicking it to the Virginia Supreme Court and “special masters” yet again. Brilliant, huh? Not.)
9. Other Democrats who wanted to be in Congress: A short list of Democrats who wanted to be elected to Congress this year, but now won’t be, include: Dorothy McAuliffe (the likely frontrunner in that primary), JP Cooney, Olivia Troye, Elizabeth Guzman, Saddam Salim in the proposed new VA07. In Dorothy McAuliffe’s case, she already raised a ton of money (over $1.1 million in just the first three weeks of her campaign), and all for naught, apparently…
10. Any Democrats who naively, foolishly supported the fatally flawed 2020 redistricting amendment: As noted above in the item for Dan Helmer, those Democrats who supported/pushed for the 2020 redistricting amendment largely led us to this disaster, and now they end up with the consequences of their actions. Maddening.